Conquer Club

Pedronicus wrote:2 years on and farming is still a problem and nothing is done.

I liked the 50% either side of the players score as an entry pass to games with that player suggested by woodruff

Pedronicus wrote:2 years on and farming is still a problem and nothing is done.

I liked the 50% either side of the players score as an entry pass to games with that player suggested by woodruff

Pedronicus wrote:Anyone who ends up on 100 points should give up playing this game and booted off the site because they are point dumping.

mviola wrote:How about cutting it off by place on the scoreboard? The 3000th place can play 1000th place through 5000th place (with ties), or something along those lines...

jgordon1111 wrote:I think neon has something here. A few tweaks and it would probably work. Even though rejected I say let this one back into the forum

Woodruff wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:I think data on Farming would be interesting to look at first---before adding other solutions. How much of "Farming" is actually still geared toward NR, since the addition of the rules and other solutions that have been instituted.
How much of "Farming" is geared towards those below a specific level of points, say 800 or something.

What sorts of data would be pertinent to understand and use, before instituting any additional barriers?

--Andy

If we're going to look at farming of low-rankers as well as NRs (and I absolutely think we should be), then the only data that's particularly relevant in my view is "where is the very top-end of scores and how flexible do we want those players to be allowed to play". Why is this relevant? Because it would allow us to set up a "filter of sorts" so that the game-initiator's current score would determine who could join that individual's games. For instance:

Let's pretend that the number we want to use is "within the range of 50% of the game-initiator's score" (we can argue about what percentage to use, I'm just throwing that number in to get the discussion ongoing). Based on that 50%, if a player with a rank of 3,000 started the game, anyone from 1500 through 4500 could join whereas if a player of 900 started the game, then only players from 450 through 1350 could join. And if a conqueror with a score of 5069 started the game, then only players with a rank of 2535 would be able to join (still leaving 250+ players to join their games). Again, don't focus on the "only 250 could join a conqueror's games" because that number can be adjusted as we see fit.

This method would eliminate the entire possibility of farming WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ensuring that newbies/cooks/cadets have PLENTY of reasonably competitive games that will further their enjoyment of the site, causing them to be more likely to invest in it.

The ONLY POSSIBLE downside that I've been able to come up with is the scenario where someone who has a significant rank gets a friend to join the site and they want to play games with their friend immediately...they wouldn't be able to until the friend ranked-up a bit. My response to that is...HELP THEM RANK UP BY TEACHING THEM and then you will be able to play against them.

There are no other downsides.

AgentSmith88 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:I think data on Farming would be interesting to look at first---before adding other solutions. How much of "Farming" is actually still geared toward NR, since the addition of the rules and other solutions that have been instituted.
How much of "Farming" is geared towards those below a specific level of points, say 800 or something.

What sorts of data would be pertinent to understand and use, before instituting any additional barriers?

--Andy

If we're going to look at farming of low-rankers as well as NRs (and I absolutely think we should be), then the only data that's particularly relevant in my view is "where is the very top-end of scores and how flexible do we want those players to be allowed to play". Why is this relevant? Because it would allow us to set up a "filter of sorts" so that the game-initiator's current score would determine who could join that individual's games. For instance:

Let's pretend that the number we want to use is "within the range of 50% of the game-initiator's score" (we can argue about what percentage to use, I'm just throwing that number in to get the discussion ongoing). Based on that 50%, if a player with a rank of 3,000 started the game, anyone from 1500 through 4500 could join whereas if a player of 900 started the game, then only players from 450 through 1350 could join. And if a conqueror with a score of 5069 started the game, then only players with a rank of 2535 would be able to join (still leaving 250+ players to join their games). Again, don't focus on the "only 250 could join a conqueror's games" because that number can be adjusted as we see fit.

This method would eliminate the entire possibility of farming WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ensuring that newbies/cooks/cadets have PLENTY of reasonably competitive games that will further their enjoyment of the site, causing them to be more likely to invest in it.

The ONLY POSSIBLE downside that I've been able to come up with is the scenario where someone who has a significant rank gets a friend to join the site and they want to play games with their friend immediately...they wouldn't be able to until the friend ranked-up a bit. My response to that is...HELP THEM RANK UP BY TEACHING THEM and then you will be able to play against them.

There are no other downsides.

What about tournaments and clan matchups? It would seem to set this up they would have to build it in the code (as opposed to just making it an option in game creation). What if highlanderattack wins a battle royal and shoots up to a 4000 score. Are you going to tell him he can no longer join tourneys because the majority of people signing up are significantly lower in score than him? How about keeping Blitz from playing in a clan war game because the other team has a sargeant on the team (team games would be another issue)?

Pedronicus wrote:In English football, we have leagues. Teams in these leagues are of similar abilities and either get promoted or demoted each year. But then we also have the FA cup where a tiny side gets the chance to make a giant killing against a top side.

AgentSmith88 wrote:I think farming is a rediculously stupid waste of time (you gonna put that you were conqueror on your resume? Maybe brag to your girlfriend so you can get laid?) and I think it is worthy to implement measures to stop people from ruining other people's good times. However, limiting players from playing each other based on score, rank, place on scoreboard or in any other way based on the arbitrary scoring system on the site is counter-productive to the main purpose of us all being here: to have fun.